Related articles and links |  1 of 3

Presbyterian Church (USA) votes to keep "fidelity and chastity" requirement
An effort to allow the ordination of homosexual ministers in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) was defeated yesterday. Last year, the PCUSA's General Assembly voted to delete language in the PCUSA Book of Order requiring ordained church officers "to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness," but that move had to be approved by a majority of the denomination's 173 presbyteries. Yesterday, the deciding 87th vote was cast against the change. According to Presbyweb, an informative Presbyterian Weblog that has kept careful track of the debate, the vote now stands at 40-89. The site notes that the vote is being defeated by a much wider margin than similar measures in 1996 and 1997. "I'm definitely frustrated by [the vote]," Byron Shafer, a Manhattan pastor who was pushing for the change, tells The New York Times. "I've come over the years to know a lot of gay and lesbian Christian Presbyterians who have had the gifts of the Spirit, who obviously are gifted for ministry. This is just a failure of our church to recognize the gifts of the Spirit in these people." The Associated Press quotes the other side of the debate. "Hopefully, this strong vote will conclude the decades old repetition of attempts to alter the church's position on these matters," says Presbyterians for Renewal's Joe Rightmyer. "[The vote] reaffirms that the historic witness of Scripture and our confessions regarding sexual morality is clear and to be preserved within our denomination."

There will certainly be much commentary at Presbyweb, Presbyterian News Service, The Layman (conservative), More Light Presbyterians (pro-homosexual-ordination) and other PCUSA sites.

More on Ralph Reed's Enron ties
The Washington Post has also uncovered more involvement of former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed in the Enron scandal. Reed's lobbying for the company was discussed before, but never in this much detail: "Just before the last presidential election, Bush campaign adviser Ralph Reed offered to help Enron Corp. deregulate the electricity industry by working his 'good friends' in Washington and by mobilizing religious leaders and pro-family groups for the cause," writes Joe Stephens. "For a $380,000 fee, the conservative political strategist proposed a broad lobbying strategy that included using … conservative talk shows and nonprofits to press Congress for favorable legislation. Reed said he could place letters from community leaders in the opinion pages of major newspapers, producing clips that Reed would 'blast fax' to Capitol Hill."

Then there's this disturbing quote from Reed's memo: "In public policy, it matters less who has the best arguments and more who gets heard—and by whom."

Forget about the Enron scandal for a bit. What does this say about religious profamily groups? Are they pushovers, or does Ralph Reed overestimate his ability to get them to talk about whatever he wants them to? Why would these groups lobby for Enron? Would they argue that deregulating Enron is a key part of our Christian calling because … um … families and churches use energy?

Faith-based initiative exemplar busted
A "showcase of the Bush administration's faith-based initiative is violating federal rules and failing to deliver on its promise," The Washington Post reported yesterday. Last year, the Church Association for Community Services (CACS) purchased 300 abandoned Washington, D.C., houses from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It planned to renovate the houses and sell them cheaply to low-income families. But CACS hired a for-profit company to run the renovation and sales—a violation of federal regulations. The Post also notes that the program isn't really helping: "According to HUD records, the buyers have paid on average $39,000 above what it cost the group to purchase and repair the house. The average price of the 31 houses sold or under contract is $141,000, eliminating the savings intended for low-income families." CACS officials say they didn't know anything was wrong until the Post started asking questions. "The blame cannot be placed on the Church Association," says Walter E. Fauntroy, a CACS board member. "The fault is with HUD." The department has suspended its partnership with CACS.

next page... |  1 of 3

February (Web-only) 2002, Vol. 46